Palace of Westminster: Security Passes

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in the interests of security, they have instructed Ministers to wear their security passes while in the Palace of Westminster.

Baroness Amos: All Members of the House are required by the House authorities to wear their pass at all times while within the parliamentary estate.
	The recently published handbook on facilities and services for Members (2005) which was circulated to all Members, clearly states: "Passholders must always wear their passes while they are on the Parliamentary estate. They should remove them when they leave the estate".
	As Leader of the House, I have drawn these instructions to the attention of Lords Ministers.

Northern Ireland: District Policing Partnerships

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	To what extent they are satisfied with the ways in which district police partnerships are functioning in Northern Ireland; and whether they are considering ways in which the partnerships' work could be improved.

Lord Rooker: Though still early in their development the Government believe that district policing partnerships (DPPs) are functioning very well. DPPs form a vital link between the local community and PSNI and have increased the understanding of the public in policing issues. The Government would like to pay tribute to all those independent members who have taken the steps to join DPPs. The functioning of the DPPs is a matter for the policing board and in accordance with Section 19 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 the board may issue a code of practice containing guidance on the exercise by DPPs of their functions. This code has been revised by the policing board and is currently out for consultation.

Northern Ireland: District Policing Partnerships

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What relationships should exist between a district police partnership, the relevant community safety partnership, the general public of each district, and the Police Service for Northern Ireland at local and central level.

Lord Rooker: District policing partnerships (DPPs) and community safety partnerships (CSPs) have distinct but complementary roles. Both partnerships should seek to work closely together and undertake joint approaches when appropriate.
	The relationship between the PSNI, general public and DPPs is set out in the relevant sections of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. The Northern Ireland Policing Board issues guidance by way of a code of practice on the exercise by district policing partnerships of their functions. The code also describes the relationship between DPPs and CSPs.
	Community safety partnerships exist in each district council area. Although voluntary in status, CSPs adopt a holistic approach to tackling crime, fear of crime and anti-social behaviour and have developed local strategies through a comprehensive consultation process, involving all appropriate statutory bodies, including the PSNI and local DPPs, as well as voluntary and community organisations and the general public. Oversight of and guidance to CSPs is provided by the NIO Community Safety Unit, which also assumes a central role for developing community safety policy and strategy in conjunction with the police and other partner bodies.

Northern Ireland: District Policing Partnerships

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What evaluation methods and criteria they propose to monitor best practice in district police partnership and community safety partnerships; and whether those bodies' boundaries are now co-terminous.

Lord Rooker: The evaluation methods and criteria used to monitor best practice in district policing partnerships (DPPs) is a matter for the Northern Ireland Policing Board (NIPB). NIPB has informed me that it has recently completed an extensive review of the work of the DPPs covering their first year in office. From this NIPB has identified best practice in a number of areas. Following this review, processes have been put in place to enable the DPP managers to promote best practice within their local area.
	The NIO Community Safety Unit (CSU) provides guidance to and oversees the development of community safety partnerships. In exercising this role, the CSU has monitored closely the development of local community safety strategies, which CSPs are due officially to launch in June of this year. This monitoring process will continue as CSPs move from strategy development to implementation plans, and this will include evaluation of local projects to determine good practice.
	Since their establishment the boundaries of both partnerships have been co-terminous.

Ulster-Scots Agency

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Ulster-Scots Agency has sufficient funds to carry out the care and maintenance policy of the cross-border implementation bodies.

Lord Rooker: The budget allocated to the Ulster-Scots Agency for 2005 is sufficient to enable it to meet the objectives and targets laid out in its corporate and annual business plans agreed and approved after consultation between the agency and its sponsor departments and with the finance departments north and south.

North/South Ministerial Council

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Rooker on 8 June (WA 90), what has been the expenditure on travel by the North/South Ministerial Council Joint Secretariat for each year since 2001.

Lord Rooker: I have nothing further to add to my Answer of June 8 (Official Report, Col. WA 90).

Crossrail Bill

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the objectives of reducing regulation on business have been complied with in connection with the provision of information on the costs and benefits of Crossrail in terms of the regulatory impact on individual businesses affected, and in particular
	(a) whether a full regulatory impact assessment will be carried out on the individual provisions of the Crossrail Bill, rather than the costs of the parliamentary or administrative processes involved;
	(b) whether the promoters of the Bill will make an assessment of the Bill's impact on competition as required by the Office of Fair Trading; and
	(c) why the rail industry was left out of the Crossrail Bill regulatory impact assessment consultation process when it may suffer the greatest impact.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The approach taken to the RIA of the Crossrail Bill, and to the engagement of affected parties in the process in general, is entirely consistent with the Government's regulatory impact policy.
	The Crossrail Bill is a hybrid Bill, and as such it is unusual in that it seeks powers to implement a single specific project, rather than a policy with general application. The special nature of the Crossrail Bill requires that the RIA process be applied appropriately to fit the circumstances. The RIA considered, therefore, the need for primary legislation to implement the project, and the impacts this will have.
	Officials from the Department for Transport have met representatives of the freight industry on several occasions to discuss their concerns relating to the Crossrail Bill and the project in general. These meetings will continue.

Crossrail Bill

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In respect of the regulatory impact statement produced in connection with the Crossrail Bill, why the hybrid Bill procedure is considered to be a benefit rather than a disbenefit to businesses affected.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The regulatory impact assessment of the Crossrail Bill concluded that, in relation to the other options considered, the hybrid Bill process would provide greater certainty for affected parties that a viable Crossrail project could be taken forward and implemented as quickly as possible, while minimising the administrative burden on them.

Crossrail Bill

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, before Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Commons, they will provide the information relied upon to make the assessment that the benefits of the Crossrail project justify the costs as attested in the regulatory impact statement.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The regulatory impact assessment (RIA) of the Crossrail Bill considered the need for primary legislation to implement the project, and the impacts this would have. It concluded that the benefits of the hybrid Bill process would justify the costs. The rationale for this conclusion is set out in the RIA.
	A review of the Crossrail project Review of the Crossrail Business Case was published by the Department for Transport in July 2004. This review assessed the costs and benefits of the project as a whole.

Crossrail Bill

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Crossrail hybrid Bill procedure paper posted on the Department for Transport's website on 2 June:
	(a) why the Government have submitted a supplemental environmental statement three months after the original statement;
	(b) what the supplemental statement is in response to; and
	(c) why the information contained in it was not submitted when the Bill was published in February.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The supplementary environmental statement provides additional information on the works and environmental impacts related to certain aspects of the Crossrail project in addition to those reported in the main environmental statement. These are either matters where it was considered necessary to consider variations to the assumptions in the environmental statement or where further information had become available.

On-street Parking: Use of Income

Lord Bradshaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	For what purposes a local authority can lawfully spend the proceeds of on-street parking.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended by Section 95 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 and other legislation, sets out the purposes for which surplus income from on-street parking can be used. These are:
	the making good of any amount charged to the general fund in the four years immediately preceding the financial year in question;
	meeting all or any part of the cost of provision and maintenance of off-street parking facilities by the local authority; and
	making to other local authorities or other persons contributions towards the cost of the provision and maintenance by them of off-street parking facilities.
	If it appears to the local authority that the provision in its area of further off-street parking accommodation is unnecessary or undesirable, the surplus may be used for the following purposes:
	meeting costs incurred, whether by the local authority or by some other person, in the provision or operation of, or of facilities for, public passenger transport services;
	the purposes of a highway or road improvement project in the local authority's area;
	in the case of a London authority; meeting costs incurred by the authority in respect of the maintenance of roads maintained at the public expense by it;
	the purposes of environmental improvement in the local authority's area; and
	in the case of such local authorities as may be prescribed, any other purposes for which the authority may lawfully incur expenditure.
	In the case of a London authority, meeting all or part of the cost of implementing the London transport strategy and making contributions to other London authorities to undertake works to the above purpose.

Strategic Rail Authority: Transfer of Functions

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the proposed date for transferring the functions of the Strategic Rail Authority to the Department for Transport.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The transfer of functions will occur in stages as commencement orders are made to bring provisions of the Railways Act 2005 into effect. The first of these orders took effect on 8 June, and the first phase of the transfer is on 25 June. The final winding up of the SRA is planned to take place by the end of 2005.

Central Trains

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the Department for Transport intends to start the process of remapping the Central Trains franchise; and how they will involve the passenger transport executives in that process.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The Strategic Rail Authority has begun informal consultation with industry stakeholders including passenger transport executives and local authorities. Specific proposals for the re-allocation of Central Trains' services to other franchises will be considered later in the year.

A325

Earl Attlee: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the rationale behind the 30 miles per hour speed limit for 1,900 metres of the A325 south of Bucks Horn Oak; and why it is not explained to motorists by means of a suitable sign.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The A325 is a local road and is the responsibility of Hampshire County Council as the local traffic authority. The recent 30 mph speed limit was introduced to enable the authority to carry out essential maintenance and improvement works on this stretch of road. The temporary speed limit was imposed as a statutory order due to the limited carriageway widths of the A325. A minimum separation is required between traffic and working areas for safe, efficient and expeditious operations during roadworks. Where a reduced width between traffic cones and live carriageway is 0.5m, as was the case on the A325, it is a requirement on safety grounds, as set out in chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual, that a temporary 30 mph speed limit is applied for the duration of the roadworks. The temporary 30 mph speed limit was implemented following consultation and approval by Hampshire Constabulary.
	Advisory signs for the 30 mph temporary speed limit were in place during the roadworks. There are no standard signs to explain the rationale behind temporary speed limits and non-standard signing was not considered necessary for these routine road works.

A325

Earl Attlee: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many motorists have received a fixed penalty notice for speeding on the first 1,900 metres of the A325 south of Bucks Horn Oak since the roadworks were substantially completed.

Lord Davies of Oldham: No motorists received fixed penalty notices for exceeding the speed limit on the first 1,900 metres of the A325 south of Bucks Horn Oak between the substantial completion of the roadworks and the beginning of June.

A325

Earl Attlee: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether there have been any serious accidents on the first 1,900 metres of the A325 south of Bucks Horn Oak since the roadworks were substantially completed; and, if so, what were the circumstances.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The formal confirmation and validation of injury and accidents records takes six weeks or more. Consequently, no official accident records are available for the requested period. However, Hampshire County Council, the traffic authority responsible for the A325, is not aware of any serious accidents having taken place on this stretch of road since the roadworks were completed.

A325

Earl Attlee: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	According to the principles of advanced driving, how many potential driving hazards there are in the first 1,000 metres of the A325 north of the 30 miles per hour speed limit to the south of Bucks Horn Oak; and what is the prevailing speed limit there.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The Department for Transport does not hold information about the number of driving hazards there are on the stretch of the A325 in question. The prevailing local speed limit for this stretch of road is determined by Hampshire County Council (as the local traffic authority). This will have been set in accordance with, among other considerations, the characteristics of the road, number of accesses, road function, and visibility, as set out in the Department for Transport roads circular 193. The prevailing speed limit through Bucks Horn Oak to 150m south of Bucks Horn Oak junction with Binsted Road is 50 mph. From 150m south of Bucks Horn Oak it changes to the national speed limit. During the recent roadworks a temporary speed limit of 30 mph was imposed. This has now been removed following substantial completion of the works.

Liquid Natural Gas

Lord Crickhowell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will review the safety of on-shore liquid natural gas terminals together with their associated shipping movements, and the desirability of having such terminals offshore.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The nature and safety of port operations, including the location of jetties and safety of navigation, are matters for individual harbour authorities. Harbour authorities have duties to ensure the safety of waters within their areas of jurisdiction. The port marine safety code sets standards for port operations and our ports and harbours have a good safety record. The Health and Safety Executive enforces shore-side safety, while that role is undertaken by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) in relation to ships. The Government consider that these arrangements work well and there are no current plans to review them.

Liquid Natural Gas

Lord Crickhowell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What risk assessments comparable to those carried out by the Health and Safety Executive under the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations (S.I. 1999/743) have been undertaken by the Department for Transport and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency into the use of liquid natural gas tankers in United Kingdom coastal waters and United Kingdom harbours.

Lord Davies of Oldham: LNG tankers are designed, constructed, maintained and operated in accordance with the code for the construction and equipment of ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk, which addresses safety considerations and practices identified at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the United Nations body responsible for international shipping. International safety requirements are reviewed as necessary by the IMO to reflect any changes in best practice or technology, including an assessment of risk. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), an executive agency of the Department for Transport, surveys tankers registered in the United Kingdom and inspects foreign-registered tankers visiting UK ports. Parallel survey and inspection arrangements are in place across Europe. The safety of tanker movements within port areas is a matter for statutory harbour authorities.

Liquid Natural Gas

Lord Crickhowell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they accept the recommendations of the Society of International Gas Tanker Operators as best practice for liquid natural gas (LNG) operations in port areas and for site selection and design for LNG ports and jetties.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Applications for LNG terminals go through a range of rigorous consent procedures including those required by regional planning authorities, the Environment Agency, .the Countryside Agency and the Health and Safety Executive. Developers and operators also work closely with the Port Authority in respect of shipping requirements. Developers and operators may draw from the good practice guidance available from the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO), as part of their application.

Roadworks

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Davies of Oldham on 26 May (WA 29–30).
	(a) how the approved budgets for the roadworks referred to in that Answer compare with the estimates made in the relevant multi-modal studies which recommended those works and which were basis on which they agreed to the works in principle; and
	(b) what assessment has been made of the reasons for any differences between the estimates from the multi-modal studies and the approved budgets.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The schemes listed in the Written Answer to Earl Attlee on 26 May (WA 29–30) predated the multi-modal studies and were not therefore study recommendations. As such I am unable to provide the information requested.

McKinsey and Co.

Lord Hanningfield: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many individuals within No. 10 Downing Street are currently on secondment from McKinsey and Company Incorporated; and what position is held by each individual.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: None.

Special Advisers

Lord Hanningfield: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will list all those who have served as special advisers in government departments or in the Prime Minister's Office since 1997, giving names and periods of service by department; and whether they will indicate which of them are currently serving as special advisers; and
	How many special advisers were serving in the Prime Minister's office in each year since 1996, indicating where appropriate the unit within which they were serving.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Since 2001, the Government have published, on an annual basis, a list of the special advisers in post, together with details of special advisers' costs and their pay bands and pay ranges.
	Information for 2003–04 was published on Thursday 22 July 2004 (Official Report, col. WS 39–43). Information for 2004–05 is currently being collected and will be published in due course. The detailed information for earlier years is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Pensions

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which aspect of pensions protection "inflates dramatically the cost of selling pensions to middle-income people", as stated by the Prime Minister in his recent speech to the Institute of Public Policy Research; and what remedial action they plan to take.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: The Government's better regulation action plan promotes a risk-based approach to regulation where regulators take the lightest touch for the best performing and least risky companies and vice versa, rather than behaving in a risk-averse fashion for fear of a compensation culture.
	In the area of pensions, the authorities are at the forefront of the agenda to balance protection with need for provision. For example, on 1 July employers will be able to promote the uptake of their pensions by their employees without needing to secure authorisation from the FSA. This deregulatory reform, announced by the Treasury as part of the widespread package of deregulatory measures flowing from the FSMA two-year review, should place employees in a stronger position to make sound decisions about investing in their own pensions.
	Further measures may be pursued following the results of various pilots, studies and reviews currently being undertaken by government departments, including DWP and HM Treasury, as well as the Pensions Commission.

Government Departments: Software Expenditure

Lord Harris of Haringey: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the expenditure in each of the past three years by each government department on buying, operating and supporting:
	(a) all commercial software products; and
	(b) those software products produced by Microsoft.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: On (a) some limited information was collected by the Office of Government Commerce in 2002–03 and is given below. The information concerned does not encompass all departments and therefore does not give the complete picture.
	The information sought at (b) is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
	
		Expenditure on IT Software/Maintenance 2002–03
		
			 Department Spend (£) 
			 Department of Work and Pensions 120,217,448 
			 National Savings and Investments 13,859,915 
			 HM Customs and Excise 8,385,806 
			 Environment Agency 8,194,114 
			 Cabinet Office 6,431,619 
			 Police Information Technology Organisation 5,096,065 
			 Department of Health 3,455,036 
			 Office for National Statistics 2,454,060 
			 Audit Commission 1,981,012 
			 English Heritage 1,865,136 
			 Ordnance Survey 1,805,247 
			 Maritime and Coast Guard Agency 1,683,473 
			 Planning Inspectorate 1,653,961 
			 Department for Transport 1,649,799 
			 Highways Agency 1,296,570 
			 Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre 1,244,120 
			 Office of The Deputy Prime Minister 1,090,039 
			 Employment Service 1,075,225 
			 Department for Education and Skills 995,636 
			 Department of the Environment Food   and Rural Affairs 826,759 
			 Office of Government Commerce 742,272 
			 HM Treasury 394,311 
			 Home Office 309,034 
			 Driving Standards Authority 302,267 
			 Department of Culture, Media and Sport 300,627 
			 Department of Trade and Industry 283,896 
			 Vehicle and Operator Services Agency 246,912 
			 Department for International   Development 181,856 
			 Centre for Management and Policy   Studies 112,243 
			 Court Services 85,599 
			 Treasury Solicitors Department 67,394 
			 Department for Constitutional Affairs 39,324 
			 OGCbuying.solutions 31,023 
			 HM Crown Prosecution Service   Inspectorate 22,475 
			 Crown Prosecution Service 8,293 
			 Legal Secretariat to Law Officers 2,706 
			 Children and Family Court Advisory   Support Services –101,294 
			 Total: 188,289,977 
		
	
	Government Departments: Open Source Software

Government Departments: Software Expenditure

Lord Harris of Haringey: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps are being taken by the central sponsor for information assurance to ensure that open source software is approved by government as having a recognised level of security efficiency; and, as this software is free or low-cost, how this will be funded.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: In July 2002, the Office of the e-envoy published a new policy on the use of open source software (OSS) titled Open Source Software—Use within UK Government. Among other conclusions, the policy stated that "The UK Government will consider OSS solutions alongside proprietary ones in IT procurements." The Office of Government Commerce (OGC) published guidance on implementing the policy in September 2002. This recommended updating OGC procurement guidelines to reflect the policy, more advice being made available to all those involved in procurement exercises and discussion with academic research institutions about future research and development.
	CSIA—as the central intelligent customer for information assurance (IA) capability development—sponsors work at CESG, the UK national technical authority for IA. Among a range of IA capabilities being investigated is the future "trusted computing platform", including the open source Xen software in development by a team led from Cambridge University.
	CSIA is also developing proof-of-concept systems using security enhanced Linux to support remote working and web services.
	Funding of formal security evaluation is an issue for any suppliers—whether of open source or proprietary systems—as high assurance evaluation is expensive and time consuming by its nature. Nevertheless, Redhat—a leading supplier of open source software—has achieved common criteria certification on certain IBM and HP systems to EAL3 and is in evaluation to EAL4 (both for specific system configurations against a particular protection profile).
	To address this problem, CSIA has introduced its claims tested mark scheme to achieve a basic level of assurance in a short time frame and at a much lower cost. This scheme will be of benefit to suppliers of open source or proprietary software.

EU Constitutional Treaty

Lord Dykes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What importance they attach to the views of Members of the European Parliament, especially Members from the United Kingdom, in assessing how ratification of the proposed European Union Constitution should proceed.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: The Government value the views of all contributors to the debate on how the ratification of the proposed Constitutional Treaty should proceed.

EU Constitutional Treaty

Lord Willoughby de Broke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Under what circumstances they will now hold a referendum on the draft European Union Constitutional Treaty.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: I refer the noble Lord to the Statement made by my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Triesman) to the House on Monday 6 June on the EU Constitutional Treaty (Official Report, cols. 683–685).

Columbia: Human Rights

Baroness D'Souza: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they plan to raise the issue of human rights in Columbia with other member states during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Union.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: Human rights are a core element in the EU's policy towards Colombia, which was set out most recently in the General Affairs and External Relations Council conclusions of December 2004. We worked with other EU partners to ensure that human rights were properly covered in the chairperson's statement at the Commission for Human Rights in Geneva in April 2005. In addition, the EU regularly raises specific human rights cases with the Colombian authorities. The UK will actively take forward EU policy during our presidency of the EU, in close consultation and co-ordination with our EU partners, both in Bogota and Brussels.